3 ms·

> The fact Nancy Pelosi can shout on a loudspeaker that she has a right to trade the stock of companies she regulates is clear evidence that we do not have rule

> The fact Nancy Pelosi can shout on a loudspeaker that she has a right to trade the stock of companies she regulates is clear evidence that we do not have rule of law. Which law is she breaking? Rule of law means following the law. Not making up new laws that you think are good and just following them before they're written down. ------- Rule of law doesn't mean our laws are perfect. It just means that people follow the laws. Eventually, we work to improve our laws and make them better, but this is a second issue to simply rule of law in the first place. We cannot improve our laws if we do not follow them first. The fundamental step here is following the law. ---------- > Equally clear evidence is that a former president was able to attempt to overthrow the government and neither him nor his apparatus/enablers (Fox/McConnell) are experiencing meaningful consequences, only his foot soldiers. Which law did Trump break? Well, the answer is possibly a lot, but its going through the courts right now. As well as Jan. 6th Committee. There is due-process in our laws. We don't just punish people before their trial.

hayst4ck 4y ago
She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation. A country can say our emperor makes all the laws, the emperor could write them down. Would you say they have rule of law because there is a written law? There could be a law that the empreror can selectively enforce the laws, would they have rule of law? Just because there are laws in books with an apparatus to enforce them does not mean there is rule of law.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation. EDIT: Cool. But which _law_ is she breaking? That apparatus cannot operate unless there is a law written down first describing that ethic. One of the most important principles of legal theory is that you cannot retroactively punish someone for breaking a law before the law was written down. You can only punish people _AFTER_ writing down a law. Punishing people _before_ the law is written is blatant tyranny. Just because YOU disagree with the law doesn't mean that the law isn't working, or that the "rule of law" is failing. It just means that you disagree with the law and want to change it.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    > You can only punish people _AFTER_ writing down a law. Punishing people _before_ the law is written is blatant tyranny. Yes. So I have any from a set of simple laws. "Hayst4ck can decide when people have broken the law," or alternatively "Hayst4ck can punish people he deems likely to break the law" or alternatively "It is against the law to make hayst4ck feel questioned." "It is against the law to cause disharmony in Hayst4ck-topia as decided by hayst4ck." If those laws are written down, is there rule of law? Just because there are laws written down in books is irrelevant to the status of rule of law. Rule of law is about more than written down and enforced laws. I cant insider trade, but Pelosi coordinates non public decisions that have great consequence to companies, sometimes directly giving them money and she can trade their stocks. To me that is clearly a situation of "rules for thee but not for me," which is the antithesis of rule of law. The article itself lays down a definition: "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws." That means you have to ask if she is arbitrarily exercising power. I would say restricting other people from self enriching in a way that she herself is self enriching is an arbitrary exercise of power. So from my point of view that is an egregious violation of the idea of rule of law.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > As proposed, Regulation FD defined any "person acting on behalf of an issuer" as "any officer, director, employee, or agent of an issuer, who discloses material nonpublic information while acting within the scope of his or her authority." https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm Is Nancy Pelosi an "Officer, director, employee, agent of an issuer" to the stocks that she's trading? Have you read the law that you're complaining about? At all?
      - hayst4ck 4y ago
        If you would try to answer some of the questions I asked, you will understand that this is completely irrelevant to the point I am trying to make and I wrote everything I said accounting for this response. If I were an emperor and I wrote a law that said: "Nobody can trade with privileged information but me." Would there be rule of law?
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  It’s not against the law! I agree that she shouldn’t do it and that the law should change so that she can’t. But presently-legal congressional sleaze is not relevant to the discussion here.
  - hayst4ck 4y ago
    What does "rule of law" mean to you? What kind of other "rule of ____" exist? How might you determine how you are ruled?
voisin 4y ago
Insider trading is against the law. Her trades, if conducted by anyone without power, would be investigated for insider trading.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > Insider trading is against the law. Is Nancy Pelosi part of those companies she's trading? Yes? No? Answer: No. She's not an insider. Insider Trading laws are about employees, or executives, trading stocks in the companies they work for. It does not apply to Congressmen, because Congressmen are _NOT_ employees or executives to those companies. Following the rules as written (even if you disagree with it), is fundamental to the rule of law.
  - voisin 4y ago
    Lol, That’s not the definition of insider trading. Insider trading is trading on material, non public information.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insider_trading https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insider_trading > Federal law defines an “insider” as a company’s officers, directors, or someone in control of at least 10% of a company’s equity securities. Literally the legal definition of "insider" here... You don't just "change" the definition of an "insider trade" just because you don't like Congressmen. The actual law seems to be 10b5-1: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm EDIT: Wrong link first. ------ Now sure, morally I'd agree with you that we should change our laws an punish Congressmen who trade stocks on information they know (ie: changes to upcoming laws and such). But its clearly not a law that's part of the books yet.
      - voisin 4y ago
        You are correct that is the definition of “insider” for requirements as to trading reporting, but read the first paragraph of your link: “Insider trading is the trading of a company’s securities by individuals with access to confidential or material non-public information about the company.” Where in that definition does it limit to insiders? Hint: it doesn’t.
SanjayMehta 4y ago
> Which law is she breaking? None any more, it turns out. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749...

hayst4ck 4y ago

She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation. A country can say our emperor makes all the laws, the emperor could write them down. Would you say they have rule of law because there is a written law? There could be a law that the empreror can selectively enforce the laws, would they have rule of law? Just because there are laws in books with an apparatus to enforce them does not mean there is rule of law.

dragontamer 4y ago
> She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation. EDIT: Cool. But which _law_ is she breaking? That apparatus cannot operate unless there is a law written down first describing that ethic. One of the most important principles of legal theory is that you cannot retroactively punish someone for breaking a law before the law was written down. You can only punish people _AFTER_ writing down a law. Punishing people _before_ the law is written is blatant tyranny. Just because YOU disagree with the law doesn't mean that the law isn't working, or that the "rule of law" is failing. It just means that you disagree with the law and want to change it.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  > You can only punish people _AFTER_ writing down a law. Punishing people _before_ the law is written is blatant tyranny. Yes. So I have any from a set of simple laws. "Hayst4ck can decide when people have broken the law," or alternatively "Hayst4ck can punish people he deems likely to break the law" or alternatively "It is against the law to make hayst4ck feel questioned." "It is against the law to cause disharmony in Hayst4ck-topia as decided by hayst4ck." If those laws are written down, is there rule of law? Just because there are laws written down in books is irrelevant to the status of rule of law. Rule of law is about more than written down and enforced laws. I cant insider trade, but Pelosi coordinates non public decisions that have great consequence to companies, sometimes directly giving them money and she can trade their stocks. To me that is clearly a situation of "rules for thee but not for me," which is the antithesis of rule of law. The article itself lays down a definition: "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws." That means you have to ask if she is arbitrarily exercising power. I would say restricting other people from self enriching in a way that she herself is self enriching is an arbitrary exercise of power. So from my point of view that is an egregious violation of the idea of rule of law.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > As proposed, Regulation FD defined any "person acting on behalf of an issuer" as "any officer, director, employee, or agent of an issuer, who discloses material nonpublic information while acting within the scope of his or her authority." https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm Is Nancy Pelosi an "Officer, director, employee, agent of an issuer" to the stocks that she's trading? Have you read the law that you're complaining about? At all?
    - hayst4ck 4y ago
      If you would try to answer some of the questions I asked, you will understand that this is completely irrelevant to the point I am trying to make and I wrote everything I said accounting for this response. If I were an emperor and I wrote a law that said: "Nobody can trade with privileged information but me." Would there be rule of law?
KerrAvon 4y ago
It’s not against the law! I agree that she shouldn’t do it and that the law should change so that she can’t. But presently-legal congressional sleaze is not relevant to the discussion here.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  What does "rule of law" mean to you? What kind of other "rule of ____" exist? How might you determine how you are ruled?

voisin 4y ago

Insider trading is against the law. Her trades, if conducted by anyone without power, would be investigated for insider trading.

dragontamer 4y ago
> Insider trading is against the law. Is Nancy Pelosi part of those companies she's trading? Yes? No? Answer: No. She's not an insider. Insider Trading laws are about employees, or executives, trading stocks in the companies they work for. It does not apply to Congressmen, because Congressmen are _NOT_ employees or executives to those companies. Following the rules as written (even if you disagree with it), is fundamental to the rule of law.
- voisin 4y ago
  Lol, That’s not the definition of insider trading. Insider trading is trading on material, non public information.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insider_trading https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insider_trading > Federal law defines an “insider” as a company’s officers, directors, or someone in control of at least 10% of a company’s equity securities. Literally the legal definition of "insider" here... You don't just "change" the definition of an "insider trade" just because you don't like Congressmen. The actual law seems to be 10b5-1: https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm EDIT: Wrong link first. ------ Now sure, morally I'd agree with you that we should change our laws an punish Congressmen who trade stocks on information they know (ie: changes to upcoming laws and such). But its clearly not a law that's part of the books yet.
    - voisin 4y ago
      You are correct that is the definition of “insider” for requirements as to trading reporting, but read the first paragraph of your link: “Insider trading is the trading of a company’s securities by individuals with access to confidential or material non-public information about the company.” Where in that definition does it limit to insiders? Hint: it doesn’t.

SanjayMehta 4y ago

> Which law is she breaking? None any more, it turns out. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749...